Saturday, November 15, 2008

BARACK OBAMA CALLED THESE REPORTERS EARLIER TODAY DISTURBED BY SOMETHING HE SAW IN THE MORNING PAPERS. AFTER WE EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT HI AND LOIS WERE NOT GETTING A DIVORCE AND AGREED THAT CHIP DOES COME OFF CLOSETED BUT WE ARE SURE IT WILL ALL WORK OUT SOMEHOW.

SIGHING WITH RELIEF, BARACK ASKED US TO HOLD ON WHILE HE SKIMMED THROUGH THE NEWS.

THESE REPORTERS WORKED THE ROLODEX ENTITLED "OVERLY EXPOSED, SO-CALLED FEMINIST LEADERS" AND STUMBLED ACROSS ROBIN MORGAN.

"WELL," MORGAN EXPLAINED, "I HAVEN'T HAD MUCH TIME TO THINK ABOUT MY BABY'S CABINET. I'M STILL GETTING OVER SEXY DADDY'S BIG WIN. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MUCH CLOSER AND WE WOULD HAVE A RECOUNT BATTLE. HAVING ALREADY PROSTITUTED MYSELF FOR THE CAMPAIGN, I WAS GOING TO PULL OUT THE BIG GUNS AND RAISE MONEY FOR THE RECOUNT BATTLE BY POSING IN CROTCHLESS PANTIES."

SO THEN YOU MIGHT SAY BARACK'S ELECTION NIGHT WIN TRULY WAS A VICTORY FOR EVERY ONE.

Tuesday's snapshot noted on IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh's court appearance for being the victim of police state actions carried out Oct. 15th in Hempstead, NY on himself and thirteen other IVAW members who were trying to deliver debate questions for Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) provides an update, "I attended court today in the stands for Adam Kokesh. Adam was there with his attorney, and some other supporters. More to follow, and possibly a few photos of Adam and his attorney. The main outcome: Adam Kokesh will have his trial on Thursday, December 11th. Sounds like the trial would happen sometime after 10am. In addition, Wednesday, December 10th and Thurs. Dec. 11th are appearance dates for some of the other Hempstead 15. So, we will standby for which dates the IVAW folks would prefer the community come out in full force for." Adam (Adam Kokesh - Revolutionary Patriot) explains, "In requesting that I be released on my own recognizance (or ROR as everyone else had been) so I could get my bail money returned, my attorney was told by the prosecutor that he would like to have my bail raised! The judge declined, but that would have put me in jail again until I could get bail posted at the raised amount. The judge also declined Mr. Moore's motion to dismiss, or take an ACD, adjourn in contemplation of dismissal. The prosecutor conferred with the police officer who would be testifying, and came up with a date to schedule the trial. So trial is now scheduled for 9:30 AM on December 11th. For reasons I can't discuss, we are very excited about this going to trial." IVAW has just published Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation in book form.

Turning to the 2008 presidential election, On The Wilder Side notes that Green Party of Connecticut officials have registered an objection that "'REGISTERED' WRITE IN votes were not counted in all towns across the state, as required by state law". Rebecca addressed the topics of write-ins Friday and noted that Cynthia McKinney (Green Party presidential candidate) received only 53 votes in Connecticut and Rebecca focused on Texas where the Ralph Nader - Matt Gonzalez ticket allegedly received 3,053. It appears many states have areas that were 'selective' in their counting. [That is not questioning the outcome or saying "The election was stolen!" That is noting write-in votes appear not to have been counted.] Joel S. Hirschhorn (Dissident Voice) reviews the election numbers:

This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent). He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.

Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot. In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were ( Oklahoma ).

Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes. Baldwin was not on the ballot there. Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California . Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes. None of the other three were on the ballot there. In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot). Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes. Nader was not on the ballot there.

In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote. Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.

To its everlasting credit, the conservative American Bar Association sent to President Bush three reports in 2005-2006 concluding that he has been engaged in continuing serious violations of the Constitution. This is no one-time Watergate obstruction of justice episode ala Nixon that led to his resignation just before his impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Nearly two years ago Senator Obama, contrary to what he knows and believes, vigorously came out against the House commencing impeachment proceedings. It would be too divisive, he said. As one of one hundred Senators who might have had to try the President and Vice President in the Senate were the House to impeach. He should have kept impartial and remained silent on the subject.

As President, he cannot remain silent and do nothing, otherwise he will inherit the war crimes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and become soon thereafter a war criminal himself. Inaction cannot be an option.

Violating the Constitution and federal laws is now routine. What is routine after awhile becomes institutionalized lawlessness by official outlaws.

Domestic Policy abuses are also rampant. Just what are the limits of the statutory authority of the U.S. Treasury Department or the government within a government funded by bank assessments known as the Federal Reserve?

Don't read the $750 billion bailout law for any answers! The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid just sent a letter to Bush asking whether the White House believes the bailout law could be interpreted to save not just the reckless banks, but also the grossly mismanaged Big Three auto companies in Michigan.

Didn't Congress know what they were or were not authorizing? Or did the stampede started by the demanding Bush result in blanket, or panicked ambiguity by a cowardly Congress?

2- As you've heard already, Obama picked congressman Rahm Emanuel to become the White House's chief of staff. Mr. Emanuel, an Israeli citizen who has served in the Israeli Army (he denies both), was the only one out of Illinois' nine congressmen who voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002. I know that the confetti has not settled down yet, but I think it's time already to ask the Obama-Biden campaign some questions about their foreign policy plans, especially regarding the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and regarding ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

And winding this up, the GOP ticket was John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin. The Republican governor's conference took place today and Texas Governor Rick Perry explained it was focused on "what's the Republican Party going to look like going forward." He then stated, "It gives me great deal of pleasure to introduce one of our collegues, one of America's great republican governors, Governor Sarah Palin."

Gov Sarah Palin: Thank you [to Rick Perry], thank you so much [to those assembled]. Thank you, Governor Perry. Thank you governors. Thank you very much. Thanks. Honored to be here and to speak with and to my fellow governors. It hasn't been that long since we all gathered. I don't know about you, but I managed to fill up the time. [Laughter] Let's see I had a baby, I did some traveling, I very briefly expanded my wardrobe [Laughter], I made a few speeches, I met a few VIPs including those who really impact society like Tina Fey [Laughter] and aside from that it was pretty much the same-old, same-old since we last gathered. But in the great campaign that has come and gone . . . And it was great. One of the nicer experiences that we had along the campaign trail was seeing so many of my RGA colleagues and I think you guys so much for your assistance with John McCain's good run. Each of you gave your all to the cause and were helpmates and positive additions to Senator McCain's good run. You were there to help when things were looking good and you were there to help when -- once in a while -- things weren't looking so good. And where I'm from in Alaska, life would be pretty lonely if all we had were fair weather friends. And you have been friends in all seasons and for that I will forever be grateful and I know Senator McCain also would be so appreciative.

Palin noted the campaign in her remarks.

Gov Sarah Palin: Along the trail, it was my husband, Todd, who was my right hand. And among his many willing -- winning qualities is the gift that he has of optimism and just thankfulness in all situations that he finds. And going forward, I'm going to count on those qualities a little more even. Because of course there was a disappointment after a loss in a national election like that. You run to win. You run the race to win. It's kind of relying on Todd with that optimism and the thanfkulness in all situations that I'm certainly going to be there with him along those lines. But far from returning to the great state of Alaska with any sense of sorrow or regret, we carried with us the best of memories and joyful experiences that really do not depend at all on political victory. For years to come, I'm going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party's VP nomination. And they inspired me. With an extra hurdel or two in front of us and in front of these young girls, I fell that we've got this mutually beneficial relationship now -- me and these young girls -- where we're going to work hareder. We're going to be stronger. We're going to do better. And one day, one of them will be the president because in America there will be no ceilings on achievement -- glass or otherwise. [Applause begins and grows ] And if I can help point the way -- [Pauses for applause to die down.] If I can help point the way for these young women or inspire them to tap into their own gifts and talents and strengths -- to find their own opportunities -- Well, it is a privilege.

At the US State Dept today, deputy spokesperson Robert Wood was asked of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agrement and he responded, "My understanding is that the Iraqis are studying the text, and we await to hear back from them. We think it's, you know, a good agreement that serves both countries' interests. China's Xinhua quotes Ali al-Adeeb speaking to the Iraqi press on the treaty and stating, "Washington's response over the Iraqi proposed amendments on Status of Forces Agreement only have some positive points, but it seems not enough for the Iraqi side"; and they quote Iraq's Minister of Finance Bayan Jabr Solagh stating, "The cabinet will meet either on Saturday or on Sunday to review the last version of the SOFA draft and then will vote." People's Weekly World Newspaper quotes Iraq's Communist Party secretary of the central committee (and Iraqi MP) Hamid Mejaeed Mousa stating, "Our party is seeking, with others, to amend the agreement, because it is unacceptable in Iraqi society in its current draft. It will also not pass in the Parliament in this format, and we will be the first to reject it. . . . There has to be an agreement that ensures the evacuation of the foreign troops . . . their evacuation cannot take place by total rejection. It must be regulated by an agreement between the two sides. In all countries, regardless of the situation where there are foreign troops, their exit does not take place by only ignoring mutal dialogue and talks, but through an agreement. What matters, therefore, is the content of such an agreement, and what the principles and basis were for concluding it. That is the correct approach." Real News Network files a report on the treaty:

The Iraqi government has made more demands for more changes to the Status of Forces Security Agreement with the United States. The government of Prine Minister Nouri al-Maliki had already demanded changes to the agreement last month and last week the US sent an amended draft proposal back for approval. But even with the US acquiescence to Iraqi demands on Tuesday, Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al-Dabbagh told the London based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, "The US reply to the Iraqi amendments is not satisfactory and there are many points that still need clarification and amendment." The agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament before the 31 December 2008 deadline of the U.N. mandate that allows US troops to operate legally within Iraq. Without an agreement the US would have to go back to the Security Council to get an extension.

While the treaty remains iffy, one thing was approved today. The Saudi Gazetter reports al-Maliki's cabinet signed off on the $67 billion 2009 budget and that it now goes to the Parliament (which will ratify or turn thumbs down).

At the State Dept today Wood also noted that Tayyip Recep Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister, was in the US for an economic meet up with the White House and that Secretary of State Condi Rice will be meeting with him during the visit. Turkey and northern Iraq are in continous conflict and it is a rare day when the Turkish military's airplanes are not bombing northern Iraq. Whether that topic will figure into any talks or not is not being dicussed. Another Iraqi neighbor is in the need. Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports that despite the US assault on Syria October 26, the Syrian government has decided it will go through with a planned conference on November 22nd. The conference has invited Iraq, its neighbors, the US, the UK and others.

An old friend used to be a very smart Marxist and was an early member of SDS -- a real New Leftist. She refused to be given -- yes, refused to be given -- a copy of of my very careful and respectful book on the Obama phenomenon. "I can't read that," she said. Some of the names on the back of the book (Adolph Reed Jr., Noam Chomsky, and John Pilger) are former icons of hers (she introduced me to the writings of Adolph Reed, Jr. in the mid-1990s.) but now she's in love with Obama. "It's the best thing that could happen," she says about his election. She's repudiated her radical past and agrees with centrist American Enterprise Institute (AEI) "scholar" Norman Ornstein's recent ravings on how "the left" must not press Obama for very much right now (Ornstein's AEI-funded admonitions have recently been broadcast again and again across America's wonderful "public" broadcasting stations ("N" PR and "P" BS) because of, you know, "the economy" and all.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times (a left-liberal Obama critic during the primary campaign) says there's "something wrong with you" if you weren't "teary-eyed" about Obama's election. Yes, numerous other radicals and I need to be put under psychiatric care because we didn't cry over the militantly bourgeois and openly imperialist Obama's presidential selection.

We have the increasingly unglued white anti-racist Tim Wise screaming "Screw You" to Obama's harshes radical critics -- this after recklessly charging racism against working-class whites and Hillary Clinton supporters who had any issues with (the racially conciliatory) Obama.

[. . .]

The local bookstore, run by progressives (left-liberal Edwards supporters during the Iowa Caucus), is willing to sell my book but "too scared" to have an author event.

Few if any of these people have bothered to read a single solitary word of Obama's blatantly imperial, nationalist, and militarist foreign policy speeches and writings. And my sense is they never will. They do not care about such primary sources in the ongoing history of the Obama phenomenon.

For the last two years talking to many liberals and avowed "progressives" I know about Obama -- who I picked to be the next president in the fall of 2006 (I thought he was too simultaneously irresistible to both the power elite and the liberal base not to prevail) -- has been like talking to Republicans about George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 2004; no room for messy and inconvenient facts.

I am hearing people of color identify with the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq in ways that would be unimaginable without Obama. This may be the worst thing of all.

No serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of Obama-mania, just as no serious scrutiny of the betrayal of the majority of black South Africans was permitted within the "Mandela moment." This is especially marked in Britain, where America's divine right to "lead" is important to elite British interests. The once respected Observer newspaper, which supported Bush's war in Iraq, echoing his fabricated evidence, now announces, without evidence, that "America has restored the world's faith in its ideals." These "ideals", which Obama will swear to uphold, have overseen, since 1945, the destruction of 50 governments, including democracies, and 30 popular liberation movements, causing the deaths of countless men, women and children.

None of this was uttered during the election campaign. Had it been allowed, there might even have been recognition that liberalism as a narrow, supremely arrogant, war-making ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Prior to Blair's criminal war-making, ideology was denied by him and his media mystics. "Blair can be a beacon to the world," declared the Guardian in 1997. "[He is] turning leadership into an art form."

Today, merely insert "Obama". As for historic moments, there is another that has gone unreported but is well under way -- liberal democracy's shift towards a corporate dictatorship, managed by people regardless of ethnicity, with the media as its clichéd façade. "True democracy," wrote Penn Jones Jr., the Texas truth-teller, "is constant vigilance: not thinking the way you're meant to think and keeping your eyes wide open at all times."

Of course, we all understood that Nader would not win the election, but the movement of Arab Americans away from him regrettably deprives him of the political influence he might have gained to press his positions, including his strong criticism of Israel's illegal occupation. His voice is considerably weakened because of the movement of Arab American voters to other candidates, which is unfortunate for those Palestinians who live in desperation on a daily basis. The same is true for the people of Lebanon and Syria who are in constant fear of being bombed by U.S. warplanes flown by Israeli pilots.

In this election, a great many Arab American joined Obama's winning coalition, despite Obama's clear indication that he wanted nothing to do with Arabs, either Christian or Muslim. We saw, during his campaign, that his staff prevented Muslim women with head scarves from sitting behind him in view of the television cameras during his campaign rallies. He visited Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues, but he refused to visit even one Mosque during the campaign. And, finally, joining John McCain, he made the obligatory bow and scrape to the Israeli Lobby -- AIPAC -- during that group's 2008 convention. He made no attempt to hide any of these clearly pro-Israeli actions from Arab Americans. Had he done the same toward any other ethnic group, we would expect that the group would find another electoral home for their support and their votes. But that, apparently, is not what happened this year. Arab Americans voted overwhelming in support of Obama, rushing right past Ralph Nader, who has articulated the community's feelings about the Israeli occupation.

This is a continuation of the self-destructive attitude held by people of Arab descent. We see it in the Arab world, and we see it among the Arab diaspora. We see the urge to defeat or to overlook one of our own in favor of catering to those we think are certain to hold power.

Team Obama launched, encouraged and fed on some of the most sexist attacks the country's seen in years. In a landscape where feminist 'leaders' rolled over and took it (with a smile!) The New Agenda was among the organizations springing up to promote self-respect and self-worth. Amy Siskind notes that today is the quarter birthdray of New Agenda and recaps the recent history:

On Governor Palin, we noted Sunday at Third, "Palin is seen as a strong voice in the Republican Party's future so naturally the press violates all the rules to spread a whisper campaign. No, The New York Times is not supposed to allow opponents to attack someone without coming forward. Strange that when they acknowledge that policy these days, it's usually when someone in the entertainment industry threatens to sue the paper. The threat of lawsuit will always force the paper to issue one of those, 'Oops, we goofed. It is not our policy to allow character assaults to be launched by unnamed persons.' Maybe Palin should threaten to sue?" As Debra J. Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) points out today, "It tells you everything that the Palin smear stories come from anonymous staffers. There is no documentation. There is no way to prove the rumors false. Think graffiti in a junior high school girls' room." Saunders goes on to note, "The political press corps doesn't win any awards in this episode, either. Remember when the pack would not jump on National Enquirer stories about John Edwards' relations with Rielle Hunter and child -- because the story had not been nailed down? It seems that there is a different standard for Palin -- to wit, anything goes."

Today the Times continues their efforts to smear Palin and Michael Cooper should be ashamed of himself. He accuses her of "not going quietly into the sunsent" which is strange when you consider no one launched accusations like that at John Edwards who, following the 2004 election, immediately launched his 2008 presidential campaign. He finds it shocking that "she will be given a starring role when the Republican Governors Associations meets in Miami" -- why the hell shouldn't she? She's one of the few exctiing people that party has. It's her or Ahnuld. And she just came off a campaign where she packed in huge crowds.

"She seems determined to remain highly visible," Cooper frets. Was she supposed to die? Was she supposed to hang her head in shame? Exactly what does the New York Times want from Governor Palin and how long is the paper going to allow the double-standard to remain so obvious in print? He then goes on to declare that "Palin remains popular among some Republicans, and she is still mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012." Among some? Jeremy P. Jacobs (PolitickerMA) reports the latest Rasmussen poll finds "64% of 1,000 likely Republican voters would support Palin over Rmoney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Louisian Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist" for the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. Among some? 8% judged Palin unfavorable in the poll (that's "somewhat" and "very") while 91% judged her favorable (that's "somewhat" and "very lumped together). This echoes Rasmussen's earlier poll this month, "Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans say John McCain made the right choice by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Palin has been the subject of largely critical media coverage but has attracted some of the most enthusiastic crowds of either campaign. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say the party picked the right nominee for president." With Republicans, Palin was more popular than was McCain. And that's in spire of non-stop attacks.

As soon as Palin was announced, Barack's operatives set about smearing her with one vile lie after another. Early on, it was noted here (back in August) that we wouldn't repeat that nonsense but if Palin commented on it, we'd quote her. She's commented on one of the big early lies, that Trig was not her son. She did so on Fox's On the Record With Greta which has transcript and video:

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything else that has been raised or said about you in the media, either during the convention -- I mean, during the campaign or since the campaign ended, that you think you need to address that has been, you know, an allegation about you?

PALIN: Well, unfortunately, early on, there are a tremendous number of examples that we can give regarding my record and things that could have, should have been so easily corrected if -- if the media would have taken one step further and -- and investigated a little bit, not just gone on some blogger probably sitting there in their parents' basement, wearing their pajamas, blogging some kind of gossip or -- or a lie regarding, for instance, the -- the discussion about who was Trig's real mom? You know, Was it one of her daughters or was she faking her pregnancy?

And that was in mainstream media, the question that was asked, instead of just coming to me and -- and -- and you know, setting the record straight. And then when we tried to correct that, that, yes, truly, I am Trig's mother, for it to take days for it ever to have been corrected, that -- that kind of right out of the chute was one of the oddities of this campaign and the messaging.

And then, too, things that, again, so easily could have been corrected about my supposed attempts to censor and ban books when I was the mayor of Wasilla. And one of the examples that they gave was that media was just sure that one of the books I tried to ban was Harry Potter. Of course, it hadn't even been written when I was the Mayor of Wasilla.

So just issues like that that just -- you know, it was -- it was mind- boggling to consider what it was that we were going to be up against, when you could see that something was written about, something was stated in the media. I knew the truth and I had the record to prove otherwise, and yet it would either take too long to unring that bell that had just been rung or there was no attempt at all to correct the record.

That was pretty frustrating.

That's Greta Van Sustern. We don't normally link to Fox but it was noted -- back in August -- that if Palin commented on that vile trash, we would note and otherwise we wouldn't. She's commented.

Virtually without exception, liberal commentators and "left" political tendencies have ignored or downplayed all such indications that Obama intends to pursue a conservative course and reject anything that suggests a more democratic and egalitarian restructuring of American capitalism. This has been facilitated by their interpretation of the election almost entirely in racial terms. The obsession with race, which for 40 years has been the mainstay of liberal politics in America, has, if anything, been accentuated in the aftermath of the election.

This is despite the fact that the election was a powerful refutation of the portrayal of American working people as racist, backward and hopelessly in the thrall of religion and conservative "values"--a political myth that assumed the status of an unassailable truth after the reelection of Bush in 2004.

Typical is the column in the Sunday New York Times by Frank Rich, which begins, "On the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy." Rich notes approvingly that the election disproved what "we've been told by those in power… that we are small, bigoted and stupid--easily divided and easily frightened." He then makes the significant admission that "We heard this slander of America so often that we all started to believe it, liberals most certainly included."

It is obvious that Rich, speaking for liberals in general, employs the same superficial impressionism, buttressed by an obsession with race, that led him to buy into the old illusions in order to embrace a new one--that Obama represents a new dawn of democracy and progress in America.

It is legitimate to recognize that the vote for Obama would not have been possible were it not for the fact that social attitudes in America have changed profoundly over the past 50 years--something that was for all practical purposes denied by Rich and his fellow liberals. Nor is there any doubt that the movement to the left of broad sections of the working class overcame any hesitations linked to the lingering influence of racial attitudes.

But there is a disturbing undercurrent in the response of Rich and other liberal and "left" commentators to the election. For them, it is all about race, and not about the social sentiments, policy questions and class issues that actually determined the outcome. They define the election as the victory of a black man, not the result of a wave of popular opposition to Bush and a Republican administration that lifted a candidate into the White House who happens to be black.

I sorry to say I'm over it. While I was moved by the first reports of people celebrating in the streets, and can still understand the feeling that many people (many of my neighbors) have, the plethora of bad analysis and false claims has left me not wanting to hear any more.For example:Obama's Historic Victory by Howard Zinn"But, as the first African American in the White House, elected by an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice, he presents a possibility for important change.Obama becomes president in a situation which cries out for such change. The nation has been engaged in two futile and immoral wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people have turned decisively against those wars."No and no. What people did was vote against Bush. They didn't like him anymore, and took it out on McCain. The McCain tactic of claiming to have years of inside experience backfired when the economic went south and the voters blamed those in power for the collapse. And they couldn't tell or didn't care that Obama was no different than McCain on the economy.And the economy was the issue. Obama was a likely loser before it came along.Not the wars. Not social justice.

Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party's presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente was her running mate. Unlike other presidential tickets, Cynthia regularly raised the issue of the prison-industrial-complex and the death penalty throughout her campaign. Gloria Rubac (Workers World) reports, "Cynthia McKinney made history in Texas Oct. 30. Never has any politician or any candidate for public office been in Huntsville, Texas, on an execution night to join in with those protesting. . . . As [Greg] Wright's stepdaughter stood outside of the death house holding a cell phone in one hand and a framed photo Wright in the other, McKinney approached her and asked about the photo. 'How long has your family been dealing with fighting this execution? Did you ever think that your family would ever have to deal with the issue of the death penalty in such a personal way?' McKinney listened to Misty Smith explain that they had been fighting to prove Wright's innocence for seven or eight years and that never did she think she and her mother would be going through this injustice."

Meanwhile Laura Carlsen (CounterPunch) reports that "Latin American leaders still aren't running to the mountaintop to proclaim the dawn of a new era in U.S. relations. The response can be characterized more as hope seen through the ever-leery eye the contintent keeps on its northern neighbor. The U.S. government has a long way to go to undo the damage done to its relations and its repuations through decades of both Republican and Democratic presidencies. Latin American leaders placed conditions and qualifications on their congratulations. Lula in Brazil and Evo Morales in Bolivia called for an end to the 'unjustifiable' embargo against Cuba. Morales added a demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. Mexico's Felipe Calderon sent a brief congratulatory note, calling for strengthening bilateral relations and emphasizing the role of Mexican-Americans in the elections and the U.S. economy. This was his way of insisting on action toward legalizing the status of Mexican immigrants and creating legal frameworks for future immigration flows."

Obama is no different. He will soon be exposed the person he really is; just another wolf in sheep clothing. Obama's promises to protect the middle class are just empty promises. This was obvious after he approved the $700 billion (plus interest) bailout to give more tax money to corrupt bankers, who will use that money to buy weaker banks. The money should have been used to pay portions of the mortgages the middle class owe to the banks, so they could keep their homes. His acclaimed tax cut promise to the middle class means nothing to its unemployed members. The official unemployment rate is 6.5% not counting those, who are not receiving unemployment benefits and are thus not counted. In 2008 alone Americans have lost 1.2 million jobs to outsourcing. Obama's solution to outsourcing is offering corporations tax cuts as incentives to keep the jobs in the US. Such incentive is nothing compared to the huge savings, in the forms of benefits and retirement funds the corporations are saving by employing very cheap labor force unprotected by any labor laws in third world countries lacking any environmental laws. Obama never talked about the poor Americans. For him they don't exist. Obama's real position concerning the unfair NAFTA agreement, that he aggressively criticized and called for its revocation, was exposed later, when it was leaked that his advisor Astan Goolsbee had called Canadian officials asking them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously, but "... should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plan".

During the November 7 edition of ABC's The View, while discussing the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and effectively overturning the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that a "priest" in Sweden was "put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference." Later in the discussion, co-host Sherri Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." However, contrary to Hasselbeck and Shepherd's suggestion that as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling -- or without the passage of Proposition 8 -- members of the clergy "could be jailed" for refusing to perform gay marriages, neither the decision by the California Supreme Court, nor Proposition 8 had anything to do with members of the clergy.

The California Supreme Court's ruling applied only to state officials. The ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" [emphasis added]. The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

A) Barbara Walters brought it up. (Media Matters has the transcript.) It's her show. Hold her accountable. There was no reason for her to bring up things that weren't accurate (which was the reason Whoopi's visibly ticked off, video is posted as well). Walters brought it up. B) In the US, churches do not handle marriages or divorces, the government does. You can be married in a church -- it can be a location. You can pick someone of the clergy to preside over the ceremony; but the church itself has nothing to do with marriage or divorce in the US other than locale and ceremony. States issue marriage licenses, states grant divorces. That's how it works. C) Elizabeth's tale of Sweden doesn't need to be addressed because who knows if it's true (it probably isn't) and who gives a damn? This is the United States of America. You don't need to fret over what Sweden did or didn't do. In the US can someone be sued for refusing to marry a couple? No. NO NO NO. If they could, couples would be suing the Catholic Church which is very clear that you have a Catholic annullment (not a civil one) or a dead spouse if you plan to remarry in the Church.

And for pro-Barack talk, you can check out the Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel who will be Mike Schneider's guest tonight on Bloomber TV's Night Talk. Watch Mike try to keep a straight face as alleged lefty Katty-van-van declares, "I could see sending Colin Powell to the middle east or to Iraq to help faciliate an exit out of Iraq or to really move on a Middle East peace process." Yes, Katty-van-van is that silly of a prat-prat. Katty-van-van will go on to hiss, "I'm not ecstatic that there are so many Clinton administration people" but Colin Powell -- the man who lied to the UN and created his own "blot" -- she wants to bring as someone to do 'good' work in the Mid East? Cover-up Collie, covering up for War Crimes since Vietnam? In fairness, if Katty's saying it either her husband or her father told her to. Since it's so outrageous, the talking points came from her father.

Laugh with Katty-van-van tonight at 10:00 PM in Europe, Asia or the US on Bloomberg TV or catch the artifical coo in stereo on Bloomberg Radio (1130 AM in NYC also on XM and Sirius) at the same time. You can also catch Night Talk online at Bloomberg.com and click here for the podcast (or check iTunes Business News).

ASKED LATER WHAT HE THOUGHT, BULLY BOY SAID MICHELLE OBAMA LOOKED "PRETTY ROUGH BUT I LOVE THAT GRACE SLICK. SHE'S SKINNIER THAN I THOUGHT. BUT SHE'S 60 NOW SO MAYBE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT I'D PULL UP TO THAT BUMPER, OH YEAH!"

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, an armistice ended the slaughter of World War I along the Western Front. A year later, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a national holiday to honor the sacrifice of the U.S. troops who fought in that war. Since then, on November 11th, people across the United States and around the world have historically given thanks for peace, and observed moments of silence to remember those who fought and died during times of war.

Tomorrow will be the sixth Veterans Day that finds U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq, in a war based on lies. Our troops, our Veterans, our families, and the Iraqi people need to know that it will also be the last.

President-Elect Obama, you had the courage and the vision to oppose this war before it started, and you have pledged to end it. As Commander in Chief you will have the power to do that. But leaving U.S. combat troops in Iraq well into 2010, and leaving tens of thousands of additional troops in Iraq indefinitely, is not ending this war -- it is continuing it.

4,193 U.S. troops and over a million Iraqis have already died as a result of this war. Countless others will struggle for the rest of their lives with devastating physical and psychological injurieds. Each day that this war continues, new tragedies occur.

The war in Iraq was wrong from the beginning and it is wrong today. There is no justification for continuing to risk the lives of our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, and the Iraqi people.

President-Elect Obama, please honor the sacrifices of our troops, our Veterans, and our families by committing to the immediate, orderly, and safe return of all U.S. troops from Iraq and assuring that they receive the care they need when they get home.

From reality to the ridiculous, Martin Sieff (UPI) is so excited and he just can't hide it, "The first impact of Obama's historic and decisive election victory last week looks likely to be ensuring the rapid and successful conclusion of the talks to reach an effective Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Was that UPI or ICM? This treaty's been discussed so long that it's rare that a State Dept press briefing doesn't result in reporters bringing up the fact that the White House swore the treaty would be concluded by the end of July. But Sieff wants to give credit for whatever happen to an election? So is that alleged "historic and decisive election victory last week" going to be responsible for the daily sunrises as well or might UPI consider asking Sieff to journey back to planet earth? al-Maliki mouthpiece Ali al-Dabbagh is back in the news. AP reports that he's declared of the US response to proposed amendments, "The American answer is not enough for the government to accept it in its current form. There are still some points in which we have not reached a bilateral understanding." Barack -- who will not be sworn in until January -- is no more responsible for al-Dabbagh's comments than he is for what UPI saw as 'success.' This is the White House's dance and he won't occupy it until mid-January. The treaty masquerading as a SOFA would replace the United Nations mandare which expires December 31st. Iran's Press TV reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani "reiterated that he would oppose any agreement which violates Iraq's sovereignty for even an iota and he would clearly announce his stance [on the proposed agreement] in the near future." Yesterday Al Bawaba reported that Bashar Assad, Syrian president, declared today that the treaty the White House wants with the puppet government because "American troops contribute to regional instability and should withdraw from Iraq. Assad told the audience that a recent American raid inside Syria near its border with Iraq is confirmation that the U.S. will use Iraq as a base to attack its neighbors." Staying with the treaty but moving to speculation, Iran's Press TV referencedal-Sabah (Iraq daily newspaper) to state that the White House refused Iraq's "request to change a SOFA provision which would grant US citiziens immunity from legal prosecution in Iraq. . . . The daily added, under the deal, Iraq would supervise US postal services inside the country but would not be permitted to inspect parcels distained for US institutions." Saturday Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) explained: "The Iraqi government is coming around to the view that it would be better to sign a security deal with the Bush administration than to wait to strike a deal with President-elect Barack Obama, spurred in part by fresh U.S. concessions as well as threats by the U.S. to suspend all operations in Iraq if there is no deal by the end of the year, according to Iraqi officials." Equally true is the US statements (blackmail) that they would pull back (to bases and stop patrolling) if there was not an agreement in place by December 31st when the UN mandate expired.

Moving from the always just-around-the-corner treaty to flashback time, October 1st the US conducted the 'handover' to the puppet government in Baghdad. So the fact that the Awakening Councils are back in the news -- because the puppet government began paying some of them a portion of what the US did -- may strike some as strange. Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) explains, "Today marked the first day that the Iraqi government paid salaries to thousands of informal security group members known as the Sons of Iraq, who have been credited with helping to reduct violence in the country. Between now and Nov. 17, about 40,000 Sons of Iraq members in Baghdad will receive their $300 a month salary from the Iraqi government." Al Jazeera notes, "The new salaries represent a slight pay cut from $300 a month under the US, down to $275 a month on the Iarqi security forces payroll. The move to bring the Awakening groups into the security forces could test Baghdad's fragile calm" and quotes the Royal Institute for Defence and Security Studies Alastair Campbell stating, "Not only is the Iraqi government paying them slightly less . . . but also they're not paying the same amount [of people]. It's thought that about 80,000 were on the books of the Americans and Iraqs -- although they initially agreed to pay 58,000 -- will only pay 54,000. Only 20,000 [of the 54,000] are being reintegrated into the Iraqi security forces at the moment so what will these others do? Will they just hang around being paid not quite as much?" "Awaking" (also known as Sawha and 'Sons of Iraq') numbered approximately 100,000 October 1st [September 22nd Bill McMichael of Military Times used the figure 99,000 during Lt Gen Lloyd Austin's press briefing and Austin did not correct the number]. So October 1st, the puppet government got a little bit of applause and today they are actually supposed to begin doing what they took applause for all that time ago.

Earlier today AP reported two Baghdad bombings which claimed at least 22 lives with forty-two more wounded: "The bombs struck during morning rush hour in the northern part of the city. The first struck a passenger bus. The other blast occurred about 50 yards away as people rushed to help the wounded, authorities said." The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued this statement: "The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura condemned the double bombing in the Kasra district of Baghdad today killing dozens of innocent civilians and wounding scores more. Mr. de Mistura described these detestable bombings as, 'repugnant crimes aimed at re-instilling fear, distrust and division among the public just as Iraq prepares itself to assume political normalcy with the upcoming provincial elections.' The SRSG extends the United Nations' sincere condolences to the bereaved families and its wishes for a full and speedy recovery for the wounded." Reuters explained it was not a double bombing but a triple bombing and listed the death toll at 28 with the number wounded at sixty-eight. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) cites witnesses counting one car bombing and two roadside bombings. Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) add that the bombings "destroyed a minibus full of passengers and rained glass and debris on people nearby" and Abu Wael restraurant owner Imad Karim believes the bulk of those hurt (or killed) were on the bus: "We are not feeling safe. There is no security, we only hear about the security from the TV stations." Al Jazeera quotes eye witness Jassim Mohammed who declares, "Innocent and simple people were gathering to have breakfast or shop in the nearby area. A minibus which was driving past was also hit and four or five of its passengers were killed. How can you explain this act? This is not a military unit, not a military barracks. There is nothing there." Andrew North (BBC) offers perspective: "For Iraqis it was a depressing reminded not only of the recent past, but also of the reality that the stability they crave is still far away. . . . This incident is gettin more attention beyond Iraq because there were more deaths than usual. But in the last week alone more than 30 people have been killed in morning rush hour bombings in Baghdad." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains, "Today's attack is the worst in Baghdad since a car bombing on June 17 killed 51 people and wounded 75 others."

The Baghdad triple-bombing targeting the crowded area was not the only bombing today. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) notes 5 dead in Baquba resulting from 1 "female suicide bomber" with fifteen injured. CNN cites an Interior Ministry official who "said a report from local police quoted hospital officials and witnesses saying that the bomber was only 13 years old." Phillippe Naughton (Times Of London) reports that "the girl blew herself up at a checkpoint manned by members of the Sunni Muslim 'Awakening' councils, which have led the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq." The Melbourne Herald Sun adds, "Police said the attacker activated her explosive belt at a checkpoint in Baquba, capital of Diyala province. . . Dr. Ahmed Fuad of Baquba General Hospital confirmed the number of killed and wounded and said the bomber appeard to be a 13-year-old girl."